Construction Zone
Don\
Welcome! Log In Register

Advanced

Why Not an S197 Mustang?

Posted by NONACK 
NONACK
Chris Nonack
Mega Moderator
Location: Quakertown PA
Join Date: 03/27/2015
Age: Party Animal
Posts: 24

Rally Car:
1985 XR4Ti


Why Not an S197 Mustang?
July 01, 2016 09:29AM
So, I'm trying to figure out where to go with my next rally car. My RX7 is patches on top of patches and has an ancient cage- I could do another FC with what I've learned from this one, so that it actually holds together. I could also buy one of the two common answers for rwd cars (Merkur/Volvo) as there are examples currently for sale, but again with outdated cages and a whole bunch of someone else's work.

Looking newer, thinking ahead for future parts supply etc, why not an S197 (2005+) Mustang? The early V6 cars especially are getting cheap and can be had for less than $3k. Mcstruts in the front, 3 link in the rear, common axle, common engine/trans, 15" wheels fit on the back and probably up front with some massaging or at the most some adapted circle track brakes, everything is steel so I can gusset and box until my welder burns out...

What's the catch? The best reason I can find for why nobody is running one is that it's big and heavy, but really only a teeny bit bigger and heavier than the Volvo we all love so much, which has success in places with smaller roads. Let's discuss.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
john vanlandingham
John Vanlandingham
Professional Moderator
Location: Ford Asylum, Sleezattle, WA
Join Date: 12/20/2005
Age: Ancient
Posts: 13,994

Rally Car:
Saab 96 V4



Re: Why Not an S197 Mustang?
July 01, 2016 09:47AM
Wot da fuq do I know but lookie dis:
http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/threads/accurate-curb-weight-of-mustang-gt.608585/

Quote

I have seen the curb weight of a 2005+ mustang GT (manual) listed as 3450. However I have seen considerably higher weight figures. (see R&T standing mile, 3850, with 200 lb driver) So my question is what is the right figure 3450 of 3650. By the way the vortech supercharger with aftercooler is approximately 60 pounds. Does anybosy have any accurate info on this?

Quote

#1GTX Builder, Jan 15, 2006
351CJ
351CJ
New Member
The GT-500 Specification Sheet Ford published last week list the curb weight of a 2005 Mustang GT, coupe with manual trannie @ 3488 lb. ( Also says ~ 3,920 for the GT-500, coupe ).

I belive curb weight is with the gas tank empty. A full tank would at over 100 lb.

OK I have no idea if that's what youse are spikkng of but if it is thats nearly 900-1000 lbs heavier than a n.a. 240 or Xratty can easily be..My Cossie 4x4 full stitch and 2001 legal cage and street car seats is 2720lbs w/ 5 gal gas on a certified scale.

NINE hundred to a THOUSAND pounds..

To quote the President of the Martians: "ACK!"



John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
NONACK
Chris Nonack
Mega Moderator
Location: Quakertown PA
Join Date: 03/27/2015
Age: Party Animal
Posts: 24

Rally Car:
1985 XR4Ti


Re: Why Not an S197 Mustang?
July 01, 2016 09:54AM
It sucks how there doesn't seem to be much decent information on weight out there- Wikipedia says 3300 for a base model V6. I'm wondering how much MORE of that is removable than the weight in a 240 though... airbags, infotainment, many little electronic thingies, big emissions legal exhoost.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
NONACK
Chris Nonack
Mega Moderator
Location: Quakertown PA
Join Date: 03/27/2015
Age: Party Animal
Posts: 24

Rally Car:
1985 XR4Ti


Re: Why Not an S197 Mustang?
July 01, 2016 10:51AM
I guess the follow up question would be whether having a newer chassis is worth a damn thing in the first place? I look at Millen's RAV4 and see a nearly stock boring crossover whooping ass and think "maybe 20 years of development by the OEM is worth something," but then again maybe any car that's just not broken or actively falling apart can do that with the right driver.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
mhooper
Michael Hooper
Senior Moderator
Location: Georgia
Join Date: 09/08/2006
Age: Settling Down
Posts: 65

Rally Car:
ae86/gone


Re: Why Not an S197 Mustang?
July 01, 2016 11:02AM
That would be Millen making the Rav4 fast, not the rav4 making Millen fast... When a car is super simple, not much to freshen. My e30 buddies have talked about going E46 cuz its newer...but geesh, you look at a stripped down race car with new suspension, brakes, trans, motor and most stuff is fresh...

If I was looking at new RWD V8s id take a peak under the GTO to see what could be done.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
NONACK
Chris Nonack
Mega Moderator
Location: Quakertown PA
Join Date: 03/27/2015
Age: Party Animal
Posts: 24

Rally Car:
1985 XR4Ti


Re: Why Not an S197 Mustang?
July 01, 2016 11:07AM
I was honestly thinking V6 for the Mustang... less power for less breakage, worry about more later if the rest of the car is holding up well and I'm feeling HP limited.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
NoCoast
Grant Hughes
Junior Moderator
Location: Denver, CO
Join Date: 01/11/2006
Age: Settling Down
Posts: 6,740

Rally Car:
Merkur



Re: Why Not an S197 Mustang?
July 01, 2016 12:22PM
Gravity Fed
Alex Staidle
Professional Moderator
Location: Δx = ħ/2Δp
Join Date: 08/21/2009
Posts: 1,676

Rally Car:
1978 Mazda Rx7



Re: Why Not an S197 Mustang?
July 01, 2016 12:56PM
they are claiming 3563lbs on the scles. I wonder how much of that is just air bags.



Respecognize!
Http://www.facebook.com/2WDriveRally
First Rally: 2010 First RallyX: 2004 (a bunch)
Driver (0), Co-Driver (5)
Organizer (3), Volunteer (3)
Cars Built (1.5), Engines Blown (2) Cages Built (0) # of rotations (3.5)
Last Updated, Oct 30, 2013
Please Login or Register to post a reply
NONACK
Chris Nonack
Mega Moderator
Location: Quakertown PA
Join Date: 03/27/2015
Age: Party Animal
Posts: 24

Rally Car:
1985 XR4Ti


Re: Why Not an S197 Mustang?
July 01, 2016 01:03PM
OK, so the stock '06 GT Vorshlag weighed was 3442. I think a V6 car with lexan, removal of all unnecessary stuffs (airbags, interior, dash, cut out all mounts and bracing for same, skin hood/trunk/fenders), exhaust ending ahead of rear axle, no sway bars, no wing or body kit junk could easily get under 3k lbs. Then we just pile weight back on with cage, skids, bracing, etc...

What do we think, 500 lbs heavier than John's XR4Ti at that point?
Please Login or Register to post a reply
NONACK
Chris Nonack
Mega Moderator
Location: Quakertown PA
Join Date: 03/27/2015
Age: Party Animal
Posts: 24

Rally Car:
1985 XR4Ti


Re: Why Not an S197 Mustang?
July 01, 2016 01:04PM
Quote
Gravity Fed
they are claiming 3563lbs on the scles. I wonder how much of that is just air bags.

I'm seeing the dash alone quoted at 75 lbs!
Please Login or Register to post a reply
john vanlandingham
John Vanlandingham
Professional Moderator
Location: Ford Asylum, Sleezattle, WA
Join Date: 12/20/2005
Age: Ancient
Posts: 13,994

Rally Car:
Saab 96 V4



Re: Why Not an S197 Mustang?
July 01, 2016 01:09PM
Quote
NONACK
I guess the follow up question would be whether having a newer chassis is worth a damn thing in the first place? I look at Millen's RAV4 and see a nearly stock boring crossover whooping ass and think "maybe 20 years of development by the OEM is worth something," but then again maybe any car that's just not broken or actively falling apart can do that with the right driver.

This.

You know I push Xratty and Volvo not because they are "perfect' but because they are both "pretty damn good" and importantly they're cheap..That leaves money in a fixed budget to feed in some new parts that are stronger AND fresher then OEM newer stuff.

The one area where 20 (or 25) years of OEM development is significantly better is engine design...But as we have just seen with The New and Improved Dave Clark with Sean Medcroft's Xratty and the new stock Duratec turbo failing and burning a hole in a piston in only 4 events:

if you want reliability you still have to put in the right parts (forged pistons) and keep it cool... And maybe have some sense about just how much power is needed...220-230 n.a. HP and right box and final drive in the typical club Volvo in the far North seems to be enough for those guys to go a helluva lot faster than almost anybody here (overall). (in other words rather than 280 hp and 350 ft/lbs and then piss that away with a 3,9 final drive, 220 hp and 250 ft/lbs and 4.3 final drive might be smrater-er-er. knowwhatImean,Vern?)



John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
john vanlandingham
John Vanlandingham
Professional Moderator
Location: Ford Asylum, Sleezattle, WA
Join Date: 12/20/2005
Age: Ancient
Posts: 13,994

Rally Car:
Saab 96 V4



Re: Why Not an S197 Mustang?
July 01, 2016 01:12PM
Quote
NONACK
OK, so the stock '06 GT Vorshlag weighed was 3442. I think a V6 car with lexan, removal of all unnecessary stuffs (airbags, interior, dash, cut out all mounts and bracing for same, skin hood/trunk/fenders), exhaust ending ahead of rear axle, no sway bars, no wing or body kit junk could easily get under 3k lbs. Then we just pile weight back on with cage, skids, bracing, etc...

What do we think, 500 lbs heavier than John's XR4Ti at that point?

400 lbs out is prolly waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay optimistic..
And then you add the current 2007 WRC spec cage you might be right back where you started.

(Oh how I lurv my old Saab: 2020 with 6 gallons and a spare and a jack--certified scale. 5.43 final drive..165 hp+ it's fuuuuun.)



John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
NONACK
Chris Nonack
Mega Moderator
Location: Quakertown PA
Join Date: 03/27/2015
Age: Party Animal
Posts: 24

Rally Car:
1985 XR4Ti


Re: Why Not an S197 Mustang?
July 01, 2016 01:25PM
Quote
john vanlandingham
Quote
NONACK
but then again maybe any car that's just not broken or actively falling apart can do that with the right driver.

This.

You know I push Xratty and Volvo not because they are "perfect' but because they are both "pretty damn good" and importantly they're cheap..That leaves money in a fixed budget to feed in some new parts that are stronger AND fresher then OEM newer stuff.

The one area where 20 (or 25) years of OEM development is significantly better is engine design...But as we have just seen with The New and Improved Dave Clark with Sean Medcroft's Xratty and the new stock Duratec turbo failing and burning a hole in a piston in only 4 events:

if you want reliability you still have to put in the right parts (forged pistons) and keep it cool... And maybe have some sense about just how much power is needed...220-230 n.a. HP and right box and final drive in the typical club Volvo in the far North seems to be enough for those guys to go a helluva lot faster than almost anybody here (overall). (in other words rather than 280 hp and 350 ft/lbs and then piss that away with a 3,9 final drive, 220 hp and 250 ft/lbs and 4.3 final drive might be smrater-er-er. knowwhatImean,Vern?)

The difference I'm suggesting is that maybe something newer has more "pretty damn good" in it from the get-go, so it wouldn't need as much modification as the old cars to just survive a rally- but I don't know, it's purely speculation. I looked under an RX8 thinking the same thing and about pooped myself (so many tiny aluminum bits!), but the Mustang stuff actually looks like it might hold up.

I should probably just grab another RX7 shell and stop worrying about this.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
Robert Culbertson
Robert Culbertson
Mod Moderator
Location: Portland , Or
Join Date: 08/15/2010
Age: Party Animal
Posts: 1,208

Rally Car:
MK2 VW GTI



Re: Why Not an S197 Mustang?
July 01, 2016 01:43PM
Quote
john vanlandingham
Quote
NONACK
I guess the follow up question would be whether having a newer chassis is worth a damn thing in the first place? I look at Millen's RAV4 and see a nearly stock boring crossover whooping ass and think "maybe 20 years of development by the OEM is worth something," but then again maybe any car that's just not broken or actively falling apart can do that with the right driver.

This.

You know I push Xratty and Volvo not because they are "perfect' but because they are both "pretty damn good" and importantly they're cheap..That leaves money in a fixed budget to feed in some new parts that are stronger AND fresher then OEM newer stuff.

The one area where 20 (or 25) years of OEM development is significantly better is engine design...But as we have just seen with The New and Improved Dave Clark with Sean Medcroft's Xratty and the new stock Duratec turbo failing and burning a hole in a piston in only 4 events:

if you want reliability you still have to put in the right parts (forged pistons) and keep it cool... And maybe have some sense about just how much power is needed...220-230 n.a. HP and right box and final drive in the typical club Volvo in the far North seems to be enough for those guys to go a helluva lot faster than almost anybody here (overall). (in other words rather than 280 hp and 350 ft/lbs and then piss that away with a 3,9 final drive, 220 hp and 250 ft/lbs and 4.3 final drive might be smrater-er-er. knowwhatImean,Vern?)

Once again, it was 6 events on the ecoboost, and a used motor. They also have forged Pistons with a steel band supporting the top ring.
Cooling was definitely the issue in that failure.
The more you know.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2016 01:44PM by Robert Culbertson.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
john vanlandingham
John Vanlandingham
Professional Moderator
Location: Ford Asylum, Sleezattle, WA
Join Date: 12/20/2005
Age: Ancient
Posts: 13,994

Rally Car:
Saab 96 V4



Re: Why Not an S197 Mustang?
July 01, 2016 06:27PM
Quote
Robert Culbertson
Quote
john vanlandingham
Quote
NONACK
I guess the follow up question would be whether having a newer chassis is worth a damn thing in the first place? I look at Millen's RAV4 and see a nearly stock boring crossover whooping ass and think "maybe 20 years of development by the OEM is worth something," but then again maybe any car that's just not broken or actively falling apart can do that with the right driver.

This.

You know I push Xratty and Volvo not because they are "perfect' but because they are both "pretty damn good" and importantly they're cheap..That leaves money in a fixed budget to feed in some new parts that are stronger AND fresher then OEM newer stuff.

The one area where 20 (or 25) years of OEM development is significantly better is engine design...But as we have just seen with The New and Improved Dave Clark with Sean Medcroft's Xratty and the new stock Duratec turbo failing and burning a hole in a piston in only 4 events:

if you want reliability you still have to put in the right parts (forged pistons) and keep it cool... And maybe have some sense about just how much power is needed...220-230 n.a. HP and right box and final drive in the typical club Volvo in the far North seems to be enough for those guys to go a helluva lot faster than almost anybody here (overall). (in other words rather than 280 hp and 350 ft/lbs and then piss that away with a 3,9 final drive, 220 hp and 250 ft/lbs and 4.3 final drive might be smrater-er-er. knowwhatImean,Vern?)

Once again, it was 6 events on the ecoboost, and a used motor. They also have forged Pistons with a steel band supporting the top ring.
Cooling was definitely the issue in that failure.
The more you know.....

Oh Ok 6 events---say average 100 miles..I was confused when you wrote a couple of weeks ago
Quote
Robert Culbertson
"That same motor did 4 more races with high temps, and it never skipped a beat... until Rocky this year, when it holed a piston. The 'boost is a pretty tough little motor."

4 events, 6 events, nice design but still it cost a LOT of money to do that engine, the several gearboxes, the management alone, and then the highly dubious choices of such high output combined with THEN gearing it UP....completely contrary to the normal--and proven---pathway.

So yeah maybe if one popped a Lima, cracked the head and it neded a big rebuild a Dura-Boost-tec is an obvious choice...but with a more comprehensive and careful approach maybe.

What happened to making motors that lasted for several thousand miles?



John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.
Please Login or Register to post a reply
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login